[36290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Faster 'Net growth rate raises fears about routers
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Adrian Chadd)
Mon Apr 2 08:11:56 2001
Date: Mon, 2 Apr 2001 20:09:35 +0800
From: Adrian Chadd <adrian@creative.net.au>
To: Travis Pugh <tpugh@shore.net>
Cc: Hank Nussbacher <hank@att.net.il>, nanog@merit.edu
Message-ID: <20010402200935.U65571@ewok.creative.net.au>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.21.0104020751200.27902-100000@cider.ecosoft.com>; from tpugh@shore.net on Mon, Apr 02, 2001 at 07:55:34AM -0400
Errors-To: owner-nanog-outgoing@merit.edu
On Mon, Apr 02, 2001, Travis Pugh wrote:
>
>
> Not to oversimplify, but assuming we can continue to separate forwarding
> from the routing process itself, is this really a situation that calls for
> a complete redesign of BGP? If you look at the routing processors on
> Cisco and Juniper hardware, Cisco's GSR is using a 200Mhz MIPS RISC
> processor and Juniper is using a 333Mhz Mobile Pentium II.
>
> With RISC reaching 1Ghz and Intel pushing 2Ghz, it appears that the actual
> processors in use by the 2 big vendors are a couple of years behind. What
> happens to the boxes ability to process a 500,000 route table if you
> quadruple it's memory and give it 5 times more processing power?
>
> Also, it would likely require a re-write of software, but what's keeping
> us from using SMP in routers?
Performance of a routing protocol is not a function of just
the CPU avaliable.
Performance of a routing protocol is a function of the CPU
avaliable and the network characteristics.
*shakes head* people keep forgetting this. Do you guys also
think you can solve the internets problems by adding more bandwidth?
Adrian
--
Adrian Chadd "The fact you can download a 100 megabyte file
<adrian@creative.net.au> from half way around the world should be viewed
as an accident and not a right."
-- Adrian Chadd and Bill Fumerola
